DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received August 25, 2025. By Amendment, claims 1-12 were canceled and claims 13-32 newly added. Claims 13-32 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claims 13, and 31, which are similar in scope:
specify a first vehicle and a second vehicle; and display a tire information placement in which a part or all of a plurality of pieces of tire information corresponding to a plurality of tires mounted on the first vehicle are placed on a side in a predetermined first direction and a part or all of a plurality of pieces of the tire information corresponding to a plurality of the tires mounted on the second vehicle are placed on a side in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Claim 32 recites:
[store] tire data and vehicle data
automatically organize tire information for multiple vehicles in a comparative layout based on captured vehicle images.
Claims 13, 31, and 32 recite a certain method of organizing human activity, following rules or instructions because the abstract ideas identified above recite following rules or instructions for inspecting vehicles. These rules or instructions are defined in the claims themselves and involve taking multiple vehicles and organizing the information about them to present for display. Therefore, the claims recite the abstract idea of organizing information about vehicles which is following rules or instructions and therefore is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Claims 13, 31, and 32 do not recite a practical application. The additional elements alone, in combination, and considering the claims as a whole are apply it limitations, instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 13 recites:
A tire management apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to
cause a display to display on a screen
Claim 31 recites:
A tire inspection system comprising: a mobile terminal including an image sensor configured to capture images of vehicles and a display configured to present tire information screens; a server including a database
Claim 31 recites:
causing a display to display
Claim 32 recites:
A tire inspection system comprising: a mobile terminal including an image sensor configured to capture images of vehicles and a display configured to present tire information screens; a server including a database configured to store; communication circuitry configured to establish wireless communication between the mobile terminal and the server via a communication network: and processing circuitry configured to
These elements both alone, in combination, and the claim as a whole are elements which are mere apply it elements. For example, the circuitry to establish wireless communication is found to be apply it in TLI Communications, as well as the image sensor (mobile unit with camera and server). The other elements are interpreted as generic computing components such as a database or computer monitor. Therefore, the abstract ideas in the independent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the reasoning in the practical application step is carried over here: for the same reasons that the additional elements are not a practical application, they are not significantly more.
Per the dependent claims:
Claims 14-15, 17-19 further defines the displayed information which is a part of the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites that a vehicle is recognized by an image captured by sensor, which similar to TLI Communications (mobile unit with camera) is an apply it limitation.
Claim 20 if incorporated with all limitations with the parent claims into the independent claim would overcome the 101 rejection as it requires specifying image sensor positions based on a specification timing and correspondingly switching a screen displayed.
Claim 22 further describes the abstract idea of claim 13 and further with “selectable” is an apply it GUI limitation see Ameranth v Apple.
Claim 23 recites a database and terminal device including display which are apply it generic computing components.
Claim 24 recites information data which is a further definition of the abstract idea of claim 13 and parent claims of claim 24.
Claim 25 recites an image sensor which without more is apply it.
Claim 26 recites further limitations on display of information which is a part of the abstract idea.
Claim 27 recites receiving information via wireless which is apply it see TLI Communication, Ultramercial (internet) Affinity Labs.
Claim 30 recites generic computing components that are applied such as terminal device being mobile terminal; communication network; and display that has user input, in other words, a smartphone.
Therefore, if claim 20 were incorporated into claim 13, the 101 rejection would be overcome. Claim 20 is rejected for being dependent on claim 13 as well as child claims of claim 20.
Therefore, claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Southin, US PGPUB 20230162243 A1 (“Southin”) in view of Laperle et al., US Pat No. 12090795 (“Laperle”).
Per claim 32, Southin teaches A tire inspection system comprising: a mobile terminal including an image sensor configured to capture images of vehicles [0136] The system 100 generates and provides a link (for display at an interface application 130) that can be opened on any mobile device that would be used by the seller (the consumer who is trading in a vehicle or a dealer who is wholesaling the vehicle). This link when clicked will trigger the display of an interface configured with a sequence of mobile optimized vehicle capture modules 132 (at interface application 130) that utilizes the device camera, global position and microphone, along with other input devices
Southin then teaches and a display configured to present tire information screens; Fig 46 numeral 06 “Tire Status” “Worn Minor” See also Fig 4 and [0158] FIG. 4 is an example interface that can indicate aspects of the vehicle wheels, such as the tires or rims for example. The interface can include indicia or buttons that can be used to generate labels to identify different tires or rims on the vehicle image. The labels can be used as metadata by the recognition engine 120. The metadata can link a location of the image (e.g. ROI) with a descriptor label.
Southin then teaches a server including a database configured to store tire data and vehicle data; [0153] The data storage 110 may be configured to store information associated with or created by the system 100, such as for example image data, metadata, vehicle metrics, cost data, valuation reports and so on. The data storage 160 may be a distributed storage system, for example. The data storage 110 can implement databases, for example. Storage 110 and/or persistent storage 114 may be provided using various types of storage technologies, such as solid state drives, hard disk drives, flash memory, and may be stored in various formats, such as relational databases, non-relational databases, flat files, spreadsheets, extended markup files, and so on. Tires specifically taught in par 0137: “The system 100 can also use recognition engine 120 to process image data to detect what the remaining tread life is on the tires, any chips and cracks on any glass parts, condition and type of wheels/rims and any illuminated OBD-2 instrument lights any noises that may indicated engine, exhaust, loose belts or any other audibly detectable mechanical issues.” Server is taught in par 248: “Throughout the foregoing discussion, numerous references will be made regarding servers, services, interfaces, portals, platforms, or other systems formed from computing devices. It should be appreciated that the use of such terms is deemed to represent one or more computing devices having at least one processor configured to execute software instructions stored on a computer readable tangible, non-transitory medium. For example, a server can include one or more computers operating as a web server, database server, or other type of computer server in a manner to fulfill described roles, responsibilities, or functions.” [0111] The system 100 can include an I/O Unit 102, a processor 104, communication interface 106, and data storage 110. The processor 104 can execute instructions in memory 108 to implement aspects of processes described herein. The processor 104 can execute instructions in memory 108 to configure a recognition engine 120, cost estimate tool 122, application programming interface (API) 124, valuation tool 126, and other functions described herein. The system 100 may be software (e.g., code segments compiled into machine code), hardware, embedded firmware, or a combination of software and hardware, according to various embodiments.
Southin then teaches communication circuitry configured to establish wireless communication between the mobile terminal and the server via a communication network in par 0151: “[0151] The communication interface 106 can enable the system 100 to communicate with other components, to exchange data with other components, to access and connect to network resources, to serve applications, and perform other computing applications by connecting to a network 140 (or multiple networks) capable of carrying data including the Internet, Ethernet, plain old telephone service (POTS) line, public switch telephone network (PSTN), integrated services digital network (ISDN), digital subscriber line (DSL), coaxial cable, fiber optics, satellite, mobile, wireless (e.g. Wi-Fi, WiMAX), SS7 signaling network, fixed line, local area network, wide area network, and others, including any combination of these.” The system communicating with other components teaches communicating with the mobile device.
Southin does not teach and processing circuitry configured to automatically organize tire information for multiple vehicles in a comparative layout based on captured vehicle images.
Laperle teaches tire inspection. See abstract.
Laperle teaches and processing circuitry configured to automatically organize tire information for multiple vehicles in a comparative layout based on captured vehicle images in Col 6 ln 64 – col 7 ln 10: “(47) FIG. 4 shows a schematic block diagram of an image processing system 500 for use with a system 100 for monitoring road vehicles and off-road vehicles such as one or more vehicles like the vehicle 10. In some embodiments, one or more images captured by an electronic device 501 can be processed using the image processing system 500. For example, in some embodiments, the electronic device 501 may transmit image information relating to a tire 34 of a vehicle, such as the tires 34.sub.1 to 34.sub.4 of the vehicle 10, through a communication network 502, to an image processing entity 505 over a communication link, which may be implemented over a cellular network, a WiFi network or other wireless LAN, a WiMAX network or other wireless WAN, etc.” Although captured vehicle images was previously taught by Southin, Laperle teaches based on captured vehicle images here as the images captured by the electronic device provide the information input for the organized tire information for multiple vehicles, below.
Figs 8A-C Tire status for different vehicle models. See also Col 15 ln 7-46: “FIG. 8 A to C illustrate representations of different databases that may be generated by the server processor 1144 based on information stored in memory 1146. The server memory 1146 can store a history of all information necessary for performance of the system 100, including a record of all inspections and conclusions made. These databases, or the information stored within them, may be accessible to users and administrators of the system 100, or to software able to interact with the system 100 through the use of an application programming interface (API).
FIG. 8A shows an example of a visual representation of a database that can be generated by the system 100 according to an embodiment directed towards a specific tire manufacturer. This includes an indication of tire model, a serial number for the tire, the date of an inspection, the type of inspection, along with the registered owner. This database representation gives the manufacturer access to all registered tires sold and registered within the system 100, and allows access to information on tire wear and damage.
FIG. 8B shows an example of a visual representation of a database that can be generated by the system 100 according to an embodiment directed towards a vehicle fleet manager. The database includes an indication of tire model, a unique identifier for the vehicle itself, the date of an inspection, tire status, and an additional field for manager notes. This database representation gives the fleet manager access to all vehicles registered within the system 100, and allows them to access a history of information on tire wear and/or damage.
FIG. 8C shows an example of a visual representation of a database that can be generated by the system 100 according to an embodiment directed towards a specific vehicle manufacturer. This includes an indication of vehicle model, tire model, a date of an inspection, tire status, and an additional field for manager notes. This database representation gives the vehicle manufacturer access to all of their vehicles registered within the system 100, and allows them to access a history of information on tire wear and/or damage.” As these are visual representations of the database this teaches the limitation.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle inspection including tires teaching of Southin with the multiple vehicle tire inspection visually organized based on image capture device teaching of Laperle because Laperle teaches in col 1 ln 33-45: “Numerous factors affect performance of road vehicles and off-road vehicles, including their components (e.g., tires) and their environments (e.g., grounds on which they operate). While some of these factors may be managed by users (e.g., operator) of the vehicles, this may lead to suboptimal work (e.g., construction work), greater wear or other deterioration of components of the vehicles, and/or other issues in some cases.
Similar issues may arise because of wear or other deterioration of a wheel (e.g., the outer rim) around which a tire is disposed. For these and other reasons, there is a need to improve monitoring tires of road vehicles and off-road vehicles.” As vehicles could be unsafe if their tires have deteriorated sufficiently, one would be motivated to modify Southin with Laperle so that as cars are inspected this particular safety feature is tracked for multiple vehicles. For these reasons one would be motivated to combine Southin with Laperle.
Therefore, claim 32 is rejected under 35 USC 103.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to the above claims:
Megherby et al., US PGPUB 20210241438 A1, teaches image capture of vehicle including VIN number, see par 039. This includes using a GPS receiver see par 041. Fig 2 teaches that the inspection occurs between vehicles, see par 061 where the robot takes down a row of cars. However Megherby does not teach a part or all of a plurality of pieces of tire information corresponding to a plurality of tires mounted on the first vehicle are placed on a side in a predetermined first direction and a part or all of a plurality of pieces of the tire information corresponding to a plurality of the tires mounted on the second vehicle are placed on a side in a second direction opposite to the first direction. Therefore Megherby does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
Wood et al., US PGPUB 20180284807, teaches in Fig 4 A table with vehicle IDs with maintenance history including tire rotation and detected faults. However, Wood does not teach a plurality of pieces of tire information corresponding to a plurality of tires mounted on the first vehicle are placed on a side in a predetermined first direction and a part or all of a plurality of pieces of the tire information corresponding to a plurality of the tires mounted on the second vehicle are placed on a side in a second direction opposite to the first direction. Therefore Wood does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
Sakamoto, JP 2022037754 A, teaches on page 4 that an image pickup unit collects images for evaluating tires (groove depth). However, Sakamoto does not teach a plurality of pieces of tire information corresponding to a plurality of tires mounted on the first vehicle are placed on a side in a predetermined first direction and a part or all of a plurality of pieces of the tire information corresponding to a plurality of the tires mounted on the second vehicle are placed on a side in a second direction opposite to the first direction. Therefore Sakamoto does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims. Included in file folder for reference to pages in USPTO translation.
Shop Hero Dashboard, [online] available at: < https://web.archive.org/web/20220703120352/https://www.shopherodashboard.com/ > archived on July 3, 2022, teaches in pages 1-2 a dashboard with side by side columns of different vehicles matched to technicians. However this does not teach a plurality of pieces of tire information corresponding to a plurality of tires mounted on the first vehicle are placed on a side in a predetermined first direction and a part or all of a plurality of pieces of the tire information corresponding to a plurality of the tires mounted on the second vehicle are placed on a side in a second direction opposite to the first direction. Therefore Shop Hero Dashboard does not teach all the limitations of Applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights